A fascinating vlog by an Oregon science teacher named Greg. How It All Ends starts with a simple premise: what are the worst and best case scenarios if man made climate change is real/false, and how do we go about minimizing risk in those scenarios?
This is the first video in the series, and after each post, Greg reads through the comments and criticisms, and shifts his perspective & logic for the next video, and so on. I’ve already spent about an hour watching some of these entertaining videos and discussions.
One of the main factors that drove my initial interest towards clean energy and the environment is how our addiction to foreign oil emboldens unsavory regimes in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabia’s funding of madrassas and radical sects of Islam with oil dollars has a long-term impact on domestic security, etc.
Iran is also at the top of that list. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used oil revenue to subsidize food, housing, electricity, and other staples for the last 3 years (as well as funding terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard). His political support in Iran and throughout the region relies on his ability to “spread the wealth.” With falling oil prices, that wealth will shrink, and his political support could start to erode.
Something I hadn’t considered was how a weakened Ahmadinejad provides a perfect window of opportunity for the next President to slow Iran’s nuclear program. Thomas Friedman connects those dots in his NYT column, today:
Well, if Obama does win the presidency, my gut tells me that he’s going to get a chance to negotiate with the Iranians — with a bat in his hand.
Have you seen the reports that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is suffering from exhaustion? It’s probably because he is not sleeping at night. I know why. Watching oil prices fall from $147 a barrel to $57 is not like counting sheep. It’s the kind of thing that gives an Iranian autocrat bad dreams…
The U.N. has imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran since Ahmadinejad took office in 2005 because of Iran’s refusal to halt uranium enrichment. But high oil prices minimized those sanctions; collapsing oil prices will now magnify those sanctions. If prices stay low, there is a good chance Iran will be open to negotiating over its nuclear program with the next U.S. president.
If oil prices stay low, the next president will have something that the current administration never had in dealing with Iran: leverage. The one caveat being that we don’t know how long prices will stay down. And if there is a window right now, we can’t be certain how long it will remain open.
UPS recently placed an order for 7 hydraulic hybrid (HHV) delivery trucks. HHV technology has been developed by the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The UPS angle doesn’t interest me nearly as much as the government’s work in the field, and of course, the actual technology. Here’s a short video on how it works.
At the center of all environmentalism lies a problem: whether to appeal to the heart or to the head — whether to urge people to make sacrifices in behalf of the planet or to accept that they will not, and instead rig the economic choices so that they find it rational to be environmentalist. It is a problem that most activists in the environmental movement barely pause to recognize. Good environmental practice is compatible with growth, they insist, so it is rational as well as moral. Yet if this were so, good environmental practice would pay for itself, and there would be no need to pass laws to deter polluters or regulate emissions. A country or a firm that cut corners on pollution control would have no cost advantage over its rivals.
More or less what I was trying to hit on a couple weeks ago, but in much more eloquent prose.
The Environmental Protection Agency is working at the Bush administration’s direction on a new rule that would weaken regulations for power plants, allowing them to increase emissions without adding pollution controls…
The Clean Air Act requires older plants that have their lives extended with new equipment to install pollution-control technology if their emissions increase. The rule change would allow plants to measure emissions on an hourly basis, rather than total yearly output. This way, plants could run for more hours and increase overall emissions without exceeding the threshold that would require adding pollution controls.
The WaPo editorial board is all over the latest development in the administration’s longstanding doublespeak towards climate change.
Like Hank Green, I had some doubts about Google’s RE<C program (Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal). Yeah, it’s an admirable effort and all, but it makes more sense for Google to pour its braintrust into designing energy management software. Looks like I got my wish.
in recent weeks, Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has hinted at the company’s broad interest in the energy business. He also joined Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric’s chief executive, to announce that they would collaborate on policies and technologies aimed at improving the electricity grid.
GE and Google will work on utility software to make the grid more efficient, and on software for home smart-grid equipment, Immelt said.
Similarly, the two firms will develop software to help utilities better control plug-in hybrid cars, which can be used to deliver power onto the grid during peak times. A flexible power grid is important because some researchers have concluded that an onrush of plug-in vehicles could strain the grid and lead to construction of more power plants.
When big companies like Google & GE get in the game, the rules can change pretty quick. Still, one of the biggest hurdles is federal energy policy, which the partnership plans to address. It’ll be interesting to see what solutions they bring to the table.
Charlie Rose profiled T. Boone Pickens last night on 60 Minutes. The story goes through the Pickens Plan — from the development of wind power, implementation of CNG for transportation, and the $200 billion infrastructure needed to transport wind-generated electrons across the country.
I’ve got a backlog of links and articles on Pickens and wind power, but this video hits a lot of the highlights.
Under the current map, McCain has to win PA, OH, VA, FL, NC and knock one or two Obama states into the red column. Obama has to hold on to PA and take one of NC, VA, OH, or FL.
Did you know that Ashley Todd was wearing a UTK sweatshirt when she confessed to carving that backwards B on her own face? There’s a Phil Fulmer joke in there somewhere.
I’ve been futzing around with typography for the blog today. The current “design” — or lack thereof — is not permanent, but the general layout is more or less to my liking. Anyway, my brother-in-law (aka Napoli & Type) is going to be helping with the for-real typography and a logo (the link above is just fodder for the imagination). We’re gonna try and get it implemented sometime around December (dryan and safeguy, look forward to a string of asinine questions — you’ve been warned). But I want to take my time and make sure it’s exactly to my liking before I follow thru.
On another front, I’ve been trying to learn Quicksilver, partly because of a post by Jordan Lee. I’m not really good at it yet, but I’m already finding ways that it will improve my productivity at work once I become more accustomed to it (here and here).
Good times all around. File under Life Skillz in the Digital Age?
Former EIA chief, Jay Hakes, sits down with OnPoint to discuss energy independence, climate change, and fluctuating oil prices:
I think most members in Congress in both parties realize that this problem is not going away if oil goes down. Now, to me, the logical solution would be to say we probably need to put a tax on carbon fuels…if you look at it from an investor’s standpoint, someone who’s investing in renewables, those renewable tax credits sort of come and go and they’re usually just for a year or two at a time, so they really don’t stimulate investment as they might.
As a proponent of carbon taxes, I wonder if Hakes is opposed to Cap & Trade?
Good, short interview though if you’re looking for in-depth discussion of energy and the environment w/out a gazillion numbers thrown around. Check it.
A lot has been said about media coverage since the conventions, and this graph confirms what McCain surrogates have been whining about all along. But — and it must be said — the McCain campaign has done a horrible job of maintaining a consistent narrative for the media to report on.
McCain had to swing to the right to save his campaign, and the transformation from Straight Talk Express to Far-Right Capitulation Express killed his existing narrative. Killed it. The media-darling maverick and the GOP presidential nominee really are two different people (Bush Tax Cuts, anyone?). If there is a lesson to be learned from this campaign, it’s that you stick to your arc. You don’t hire Steve Schmidt to run a “civil” campaign. And when your raison d’etat is “experience,” you don’t pick the clueless, pretty girl to be your running mate. Piss on the intelligentsia and they’ll piss right back on you.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The media is unfair in this country. It just is. As long as publishing and broadcasting are tied to advertising revenue, it will stay that way. Deal with it and move on. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, “You don’t campaign with the media you want. You campaign with the media you have.”
Finally, if Congress passes another stimulus package, it can’t just be another round of $600 checks to go buy flat-screen TVs made in China. It has to also include bridges to somewhere — targeted investments in scientific research, mass transit, domestic clean-tech manufacturing and energy efficiency that will make us a more productive and innovative society, one with more skills, more competitiveness, more productivity and better infrastructure to lead the next great industrial revolution: E.T. — energy technology.
I should quickly point out that I swallow everything Friedman writes on the subject, whole. Yet, I still don’t see how you make it happen on a political level. Democrats will retain control of Congress and expand their margins (even Mitch McConnell’s in trouble — WTF?). Obama will probably win the White House, so it’s a bulletproof agenda, right?
Alright, that might be a bit of a hyperbole, but I don’t trust China, and neither should you.
If we went into Iraq over oil, we’re doing a terrible job of getting access to it. Iraq recently signed a $55 billion, 22-year deal with the China National Petroleum Co. — the Middle East’s nation first major oil deal with a foreign company in 35 years. (Suck it, Wolfowitz.) And as the ironically hyphenated Fitz-Gerald points out, China is slowly growing its oil reserves without a care in the world of which evil regime it buys from.
But that’s oil. Surely, the original Red State isn’t pursuing clean tech like the U.S. is, right?
Kitsune Noir reminded me that yesterday was the 5th anniversary of Smith’s death. Good tribute there. And shit, that’s a depressing way to start the day. To make matters worse, my iTunes at work is completely devoid of Elliott Smith. Hook a brother up.
Richard Heinberg riffs on a Green New Deal discussion, making the rounds in the enviro-blogosphere:
There is immediate need for a coherent policy with which the new US administration can deal with both the financial crash and the energy transition. Instead of propping up failing financial institutions, the new president must inject investment into the real economy…to dramatically reduce and soon eliminate the need for fossil fuels.
I’m very torn on this idea. On one hand, the Old-New Deal centered around infrastructure development, so it’s a proven model that offers some great economic opportunities. On the other, these are two separate problems, and should be dealt with accordingly. Injecting a green agenda into any sort of economic package on the scale that Heinberg is talking about will be met with significant opposition — and that matters more than most are willing to admit.
I’m still open to it of course, but I’ve yet to see a model or proposal for this Green New Deal, so it’s kinda hard to say one way or the other.
